Isaac Asimov: The Relativity of Wrong (1989) • Hacker News Board

Re: Isaac Asimov: The Relativity of Wrong (1989)

#101

Post by pdonis » Sat, May 30, 2015, 9:16 PM UTC

Locke1689 wrote: post #97

foldr wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, this is what I said in my first paragraph: science tends to be empirically conservative. As for metrics of success, we're talking about right or wrong here, not successful or unsuccessful. If the scientific consensus in 1900 was P, whereas the current scientific consensus is ¬P, then it's silly to pretend that the previous theory was merely "incomplete". Take plate tectonics as an example. Either the Earth's s…

As for metrics of success, we're talking about right or wrong here Right. My entire claim is that right and wrong do not exist, only successful or unsuccessful.

> right and wrong do not exist

I think you're going to have a very tough time defending this claim. You might have better luck, though, with a claim that ends up doing much the same work for the subject under discussion: right and wrong do exist, and every theory we humans have come up with so far is wrong by that purist standard. But some human theories are less wrong than others, and it's the "degree of wrongness" that matters, practically speaking.

Re: Isaac Asimov: The Relativity of Wrong (1989)

#102

Post by foldr » Sat, May 30, 2015, 9:20 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #100

foldr wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, this is what I said in my first paragraph: science tends to be empirically conservative. As for metrics of success, we're talking about right or wrong here, not successful or unsuccessful. If the scientific consensus in 1900 was P, whereas the current scientific consensus is ¬P, then it's silly to pretend that the previous theory was merely "incomplete". Take plate tectonics as an example. Either the Earth's s…

> we're talking about right or wrong here And you're treating "right" and "wrong" as absolutes, with no in between, which is exactly what Asimov was saying you shouldn't do. You could apply the same logic you're using for plate tectonics to the shape of the Earth, which is Asimov's main example. If the Earth is a sphere, then it's not flat. If it's an oblate spheroid, then it's not a sphere. If it's slightly pear-sha…

I’m not actually assuming that ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ are absolutes. I’m just pointing out that some widely accepted scientific theories have turned out to be very clearly at the ‘wrong’ end of the spectrum. If you don’t like the particular example of plate tectonics then just take one of the other examples that I mentioned. E.g., our conception of the structure of matter has undergone several radical changes in the course of scientific history. These changes were fairly conservative in empirical terms, but in terms of the various conceptions of matter that they put forward, they are in some cases radically different. Another example would be the question of whether the universe has a beginning in time. There really isn't any middle ground there. If it did, then the people who said that didn't were wrong, and if it didn't, then the people who said that it did were wrong.

Of course you can always find a germ of truth in a theory if you try hard enough, just as you can find a germ of truth in the book of Genesis if you're determined to defend it. I don't see the point, though. Why bother constructing a false Whig history of scientific progress when the real history is impressive enough?

Re: Isaac Asimov: The Relativity of Wrong (1989)

#103

Post by tzs » Sat, May 30, 2015, 9:52 PM UTC

foldr wrote: post #87

andyidsinga wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems as though asimov agrees with you in the last paragraph: >Naturally, the theories we now have might be considered wrong in the simplistic sense of my English Lit correspondent, but in a much truer and subtler sense, they need only be considered incomplete.

That seems false as applied to most of my examples. If the Big Bang theory turns out to be true, then that doesn't mean that steady state theories were "incomplete", it just means that they were wrong. Similarly, if it turns out that eating lots of fat doesn't make you fat, that doesn't mean that previous dietary advice was merely "incomplete".

> If the Big Bang theory turns out to be true, then that doesn't mean that steady state theories were "incomplete", it just means that they were wrong.

Steady state turned out to be wrong, but it was far less wrong than, say, the theory that the frost from Niflheim and the flames from Muspelheim met in Ginnungagap, melted the ice, and the drops formed Ymir the hermaphrodite giant whose sweat produced more giants, and who was nourished by the milk of Audhumbla the cow (who was also formed from the melting frost), whose licking of salt-licks in the ice uncovered Buri, the first of the Aesir, who had a son named Bor, who married Bestla the giant, who gave birth to their half-breed son Odin and his brothers Vili and Ve, who slew Ymir and constructed the world from his corpse.

Asimov's key point was that right and wrong are not absolutes. There are degrees of rightness and wrongness.

Re: Isaac Asimov: The Relativity of Wrong (1989)

#104

Post by foldr » Sat, May 30, 2015, 9:57 PM UTC

tzs wrote: post #103

foldr wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems false as applied to most of my examples. If the Big Bang theory turns out to be true, then that doesn't mean that steady state theories were "incomplete", it just means that they were wrong. Similarly, if it turns out that eating lots of fat doesn't make you fat, that doesn't mean that previous dietary advice was merely "incomplete".

> If the Big Bang theory turns out to be true, then that doesn't mean that steady state theories were "incomplete", it just means that they were wrong. Steady state turned out to be wrong, but it was far less wrong than, say, the theory that the frost from Niflheim and the flames from Muspelheim met in Ginnungagap, melted the ice, and the drops formed Ymir the hermaphrodite giant whose sweat produced more giants, and…

The "steady state" part of those theories was just wrong. And in fact some religions got that part right (no doubt just through luck).

I am not denying that there are degrees of rightness and wrongness, by the way. That isn't Asimov's key point; it's just a banal observation that anyone would agree with. His key point (which I somewhat disagree with) is that the history of science can be viewed as a steady progression from "less right" to "more right" theories. Of course there has been a great deal of scientific progress, but sometimes scientists do just get things wrong.

Re: Isaac Asimov: The Relativity of Wrong (1989)

#105

Post by 5F36B5F62640 » Sat, May 30, 2015, 10:02 PM UTC

justifier wrote: post #70

this is one of my greatest gripes with academics pedantry directed ridicule this same essay could have been written exactly as is but with the tone of 'you are so right, here are some examples' but instead he chose to try to make a fan feel like an asshole.. this is my biggest problem with degrasse tyson.. he goes out of his way to make himself a public figure in science but uses the information he has accumulated to…

The lack of capitalization and most punctuation makes that jarring to read, which is why I downvoted you from my normal account. (Commenting to let you know why using a throwaway because I believe that if one both replies and downvotes the downvote is removed.)

Re: Isaac Asimov: The Relativity of Wrong (1989)

#106

Post by foldr » Sat, May 30, 2015, 10:58 PM UTC

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #96

foldr wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"most people think killing people is bad" can be reduced, with great difficulty, into statements about human behaviors and brain activity. I doubt it, but in any case, the important point is that you can't do the same thing for "Killing people is bad." It's an important distinction. Most people think that homosexuality is bad, but we wouldn't want to conclude that it therefore is.

It feels like you can't do the same for "killing is bad" because people mean a bunch of different things by "killing is bad". Each piece, individually, is much more amenable to a reductionist treatment. Let me be more specific. Suppose Alice gets in an argument with Bob, and stabs him. Is Alice worse off having done that? Is Bob? What is the impact on Bob's family, friends, and co-workers? Is society better off havin…

The trouble is that answering all of those questions still doesn't tell you whether it's right or wrong. (Also, you formulated some of your questions using equally value-loaded terms, such as "better off".)

Re: Isaac Asimov: The Relativity of Wrong (1989)

#107

Post by ThrustVectoring » Sat, May 30, 2015, 11:04 PM UTC

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #96

foldr wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"most people think killing people is bad" can be reduced, with great difficulty, into statements about human behaviors and brain activity. I doubt it, but in any case, the important point is that you can't do the same thing for "Killing people is bad." It's an important distinction. Most people think that homosexuality is bad, but we wouldn't want to conclude that it therefore is.

It feels like you can't do the same for "killing is bad" because people mean a bunch of different things by "killing is bad". Each piece, individually, is much more amenable to a reductionist treatment. Let me be more specific. Suppose Alice gets in an argument with Bob, and stabs him. Is Alice worse off having done that? Is Bob? What is the impact on Bob's family, friends, and co-workers? Is society better off havin…

>The trouble is that answering all of those questions still doesn't tell you whether it's right or wrong.

If you answer all the subquestions, then whether it's right or wrong doesn't matter. Let's take a much simpler, analogous question to illustrate the process:

"If a tree falls in a forest, and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

The controversial part of this is what people mean by "makes a sound". It's easier to break down here because there are only two senses of the it - vibrations in the air versus the qualitative experience of hearing. Once you've answered that it makes vibrations in the air but doesn't cause a hearing experience, whether or not it "makes a sound" doesn't tell you anything about what to expect.

Similarly, if you figure out what people mean by something being "right" or "wrong", you can use those pieces to cause the things that "rightness" and "wrongness" cause without caring about the overall judgement.

Re: Isaac Asimov: The Relativity of Wrong (1989)

#108

Post by foldr » Sat, May 30, 2015, 11:06 PM UTC

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #107

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It feels like you can't do the same for "killing is bad" because people mean a bunch of different things by "killing is bad". Each piece, individually, is much more amenable to a reductionist treatment. Let me be more specific. Suppose Alice gets in an argument with Bob, and stabs him. Is Alice worse off having done that? Is Bob? What is the impact on Bob's family, friends, and co-workers? Is society better off havin…

>The trouble is that answering all of those questions still doesn't tell you whether it's right or wrong. If you answer all the subquestions, then whether it's right or wrong doesn't matter. Let's take a much simpler, analogous question to illustrate the process: "If a tree falls in a forest, and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" The controversial part of this is what people mean by "makes a sound".…

>If you answer all the subquestions, then whether it's right or wrong doesn't matter.

It may matter to a person who has a conscience.

Re: Isaac Asimov: The Relativity of Wrong (1989)

#109

Post by pdonis » Sat, May 30, 2015, 11:32 PM UTC

foldr wrote: post #102

pdonis wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we're talking about right or wrong here And you're treating "right" and "wrong" as absolutes, with no in between, which is exactly what Asimov was saying you shouldn't do. You could apply the same logic you're using for plate tectonics to the shape of the Earth, which is Asimov's main example. If the Earth is a sphere, then it's not flat. If it's an oblate spheroid, then it's not a sphere. If it's slightly pear-sha…

I’m not actually assuming that ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ are absolutes. I’m just pointing out that some widely accepted scientific theories have turned out to be very clearly at the ‘wrong’ end of the spectrum. If you don’t like the particular example of plate tectonics then just take one of the other examples that I mentioned. E.g., our conception of the structure of matter has undergone several radical changes in the cour…

> our conception of the structure of matter has undergone several radical changes in the course of scientific history

Really? The original conception (or at least the commonly accepted one--even some ancient Greeks hit on the idea of atoms) was that matter was continuous, and it is pretty close to being continuous. Then we started to make observations that indicated that matter was made of atoms. Then we began to get data that indicated that atoms were made of smaller parts. Where is the radical change?

> Another example would be the question of whether the universe has a beginning in time. There really isn't any middle ground there.

Sure there is. What if the concept of "a beginning in time" isn't well-defined, because "time" is not a fundamental property? It's quite possible that both viewpoints--the universe had a beginning in time, and the universe didn't--are useful approximations to something deeper.

Re: Isaac Asimov: The Relativity of Wrong (1989)

#110

Post by ThrustVectoring » Sat, May 30, 2015, 11:53 PM UTC

foldr wrote: post #108

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The trouble is that answering all of those questions still doesn't tell you whether it's right or wrong. If you answer all the subquestions, then whether it's right or wrong doesn't matter. Let's take a much simpler, analogous question to illustrate the process: "If a tree falls in a forest, and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" The controversial part of this is what people mean by "makes a sound".…

>If you answer all the subquestions, then whether it's right or wrong doesn't matter. It may matter to a person who has a conscience.

Presumably, the effect the action has on the actor's conscience is taken into account.